Hermeneutics: What Did Jesus Say?

 

I propose that a student of scripture seeking to find a sound biblical hermeneutic in order to arrive at a sound eschatology would do well to ask, What was the hermeneutic that Jesus used? 

Hermeneutics: What Did Jesus Say?

By Christina Wilson

 

What Does God Say?

^NET  Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

^NET  John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. ² The Word was with God in the beginning. ³ All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

^NET  Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end!)

^NET  Hebrews 1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, ² in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. ³ The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

^NET  Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for him, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

^NET  Colossians 1:13 He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, ¹⁴ in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, ¹⁶ for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him– all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers– all things were created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him. ¹⁸ He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things. ¹⁹ For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son ²⁰ and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross– through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

……….

Hermeneutics: a Sunday School Approach

If I were a Sunday school teacher, I would want my students of all ages to be able to answer the following questions.

• What is the Bible about?
• Who is the main character in the Bible?
• What is the central message of the Bible?

 As an adult in Sunday school, I would answer those same questions like this:

• The Bible is about God and His creation.
• The main character in the Bible is Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New. I believe that Yahweh and Christ are one.
• The central message of the Bible is how God rescued and saved the people He created from the destruction introduced into the world by their sin.

I believe that the Bible is first and foremost about Jesus Christ and that He is central to every part of it. Eschatology is one portion of scripture; it is not the main portion of scripture. The main portion of scripture is the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord.

^NET  John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

If one gets Christ right, then one’s hermeneutic for the entire Bible will be correct. If Christ is not central to one’s hermeneutic, then any interpretation based upon that hermeneutic will be skewed, or off-balance, in one direction or another. Get Christ right, and one’s eschatology will be correct.¹

 

Hermeneutics: a Berean⁸ Approach

Choosing a Biblical Hermeneutic

The word “hermeneutic” means “a method or principle of interpretation”.² The root of the Greek word from which our English word is transliterated means to translate, interpret, or explain.³  Hermeneutics does not deal as much with the facts of scripture, but with the explanation of the facts, what the facts mean. Jesus had a biblical hermeneutic, as seen in the following verse:

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. (Luk 24:27 NET)

The word "interpreted" in the above verse is from διερμηνεύω"diermeneuo", Strong's Greek number 1329. Other scriptures containing  the same Greek base are Acts 9:36; 1 Corinthians 12:30; and 1 Corinthians 14:5, 13, and 27.

Why an interpretation? Why didn’t Jesus just show or point out to the Emmaus Road disciples (Luke 24:13-35) the things written about Himself in all the scriptures? Could it have been because some, at least, of the entire group of disciples that traveled with Jesus during His complete ministry, some of these men already knew and were familiar with those very scriptures which Jesus “interpreted” to them? Is it not possible that having already heard these scriptures, they did not recognize them as applying to Jesus? I believe an example of this principle is shown in the following:

John 2:19 Jesus replied, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again." ²⁰ Then the Jewish leaders said to him, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?" ²¹ But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. ²² So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken. (Joh 2:19 NET)

I believe it safe to say that the Pharisees were familiar with most, if not all, of the text of the Old Testament available to them, and they, more than any others, failed to recognize who Jesus was.

1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

John 3:1 Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, … John 3:10 Jesus answered, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don't understand these things? (Joh 3:1, 10 NET)

The principle of invisible visibility, which was true in Jesus’ day, is also true in our day.

Matthew 13:13 For this reason I speak to them in parables: Although they see they do not see, and although they hear they do not hear nor do they understand. (Mat 13:13 NET)

All speech is “interpreted” by those hearing the words. Jesus’ understanding of Old Testament prophecy differed at the outset from that of the Emmaus’ disciples. Since Jesus is God’s Son, He had the advantage over them, being privy to the meaning of God’s truth as written in scripture. That’s why He explained it to them (Greek—He “hermeneuticked” to them the things written about Himself in all the scriptures, Luke 24:27). Whose interpretation was correct? That of Jesus, of course.

The truth revealed in God’s word is not relative to the people who hear it. Only God establishes the true meaning of His word. Two people reading the same verses may understand them quite differently, but if the interpretations are mutually exclusive, both cannot be correct. God’s truth is not relative; it is absolute.

For example, consider the following verses.

Deuteronomy 29:4But to this very day the LORD has not given you an understanding mind, perceptive eyes, or discerning ears!

Isaiah 42:19-20 My servant is truly blind, my messenger is truly deaf. My covenant partner,  the servant of the LORD, is truly blind.  20 You see  many things, but don't comprehend;  their ears are open, but do not hear."

Jeremiah 5:21 Tell them: 'Hear this, you foolish people who have no understanding, who have eyes but do not discern, who have ears but do not perceive:

Ezekiel 12:2 "Son of man, you are living in the midst of a rebellious house.  They have eyes to see, but do not see, and ears to hear, but do not hear,  because they are a rebellious house.

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, (2Co 3:14 NET)

However—

2 Corinthians 3:16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. (2Co 3:16 NET)

Those whose minds were veiled,as the scriptures above disclose, did not understand God’s word in the same way as did those whose minds were not veiled.

Jesus is no longer walking with us on earth to tell us directly what various passages of scripture mean. Believers rely upon the Holy Spirit to direct their thoughts as they read scripture. Nevertheless, not all believers arrive at the same interpretation of various passages of scripture, especially difficult passages, such as those having to do with eschatology and prophecy.

Does this mean that God’s truth is relative? That His truth is established by the interpretations of those who read His words? Not at all. God’s meaning is determined by God. Since conflicting interpretations cannot all be correct, we must come to the conclusion that some believers have arrived at false conclusions concerning the meaning of certain passages. God is the author. Only He knows for certain which of His children read His word more correctly to His intention than others.

While the essentials of salvation are so clearly spelled out in multiple passages of scripture that these are generally agreed upon by most Christian churches and individual believers in Christ, believers do need to make choices as to how to proceed in determining  meanings of difficult passages.

Hermeneutic choices may include 1) accepting what respected authorities say, 2) following the majority opinion, 3) reading and studying scripture for oneself with prayer to God for guidance and understanding through the indwelling Holy Spirit, and 4) a determination to wait until a time when God may display the outworking of His meaning more clearly and fully, either in one’s own life individually or through the outworking of actual  history. There may be various times in a believer’s life when all of the above methods are used.

However, I suggest that a believer in Christ would do well to choose an hermeneutic for Old Testament scripture in line with the one that Christ Himself used, given that Christ is the most respected authority God has given us. Scripture itself does reveal Christ’s hermeneutic, as will be shown in a section below.

Why Study Eschatology?

Even though eschatology is not the central focus of scripture—the glory of Jesus Christ is the central focus of scripture and, closely connected with that, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ—eschatology, or, what will happen at the end of time as we now know and experience it (as a child might express it, “How does the story end?”), is part of scripture and is important in varying degrees among Christians and in the various seasons of life of individual Christians.

First, phrases which include the words "last days", "last day", "that day", "time of the end", "day of judgment", "day of the Lord", and many others are common in scripture. Prophecy reaching to the very end of history is prevalent throughout the Old Testament and New. Some books of the Bible, such as Daniel and Revelation, seem to present in great detail the end times. Therefore, in order to understand the Bible fully, it is important to know something about eschatology.

Second, the end times are the "talk of the day" to varying degrees among many Christians and Christian churches. Some churches have made a detailed eschatology a centerpiece of their statement of beliefs and teaching. Other churches do not include a detailed  end time statement in their formal, published beliefs. They may be content to simply state that Christ will be coming again. When looking for a church to join or when evaluating whether or not to remain in a church, knowledge of various end time scenarios may be important.

The same is true when choosing a study Bible. The eschatology of the author/editor can affect to a greater or lesser extent what the notes say. How one reads the Bible influences one’s eschatology, but it is equally true that one’s eschatology influences how one reads the Bible. Since various eschatological systems are at great variance with each other, they cannot all be correct. Therefore, it is important to have some understanding of the author’s eschatology when choosing a study Bible.

Third, some Christians bring current politics into the study of eschatology, and some politicians bring eschatology into their interpretation of current events, again, to varying degrees. In order not to be swept off one’s feet with false fears, or, as others might say, in order to stay alert and prepared, it is necessary to have knowledge of God’s word concerning end times.

Ephesians 4:14 So we are no longer to be children, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who craftily carry out their deceitful schemes. (Eph 4:14 NET)

Fourth, Jesus Himself spoke about the end times,  so knowledge of the same is important in order to understand His teaching completely, including what to expect at the time of His return. Very nearly all Christians believe that Christ will come again. As eschatology is about His return, it is important to please Him concerning the manner one has used to arrive at the view one holds and to be prepared for His coming.

Finally, nearly all Christians believe that there will come a time of the end, after which salvation unto eternal life will be impossible. To a certain extent, one’s belief concerning when that cut-off will occur may influence how one evangelizes others, or for a nonbeliever, whether or not one chooses to believe in Christ at the present moment or to wait.  For a presentation of this point of view, see the article, Might a Dispensational Premillennial Gospel Be Dangerous?⁴

All that having been said as background, I propose that a student of scripture seeking to find a sound biblical hermeneutic in order to arrive at a sound eschatology would do well to ask, What was the hermeneutic that Jesus used? Wouldn’t that seem a wise approach?—to use the same hermeneutic of the Old Testament and all of scripture that Jesus Himself used?

What Hermeneutic Did Jesus Use?

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. (Luk 24:27 NET)

As can be seen by Jesus’ own words, the hermeneutic Jesus used while He was with us on earth was Himself. That is, all scripture is written about Jesus. All scripture points to Him. As Son of God and heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2), Jesus Christ is the center of all scripture. To Him belongs the glory. To Him belongs the hermeneutic; to Him belongs eschatology.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God– the one who is, and who was, and who is still to come– the All-Powerful!

John 10:30 The Father and I are one."

John 17:2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.

John 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Christ being the center of God’s plan for all creation, all Old Testament promises, therefore, must and do have Christ as their center of fulfillment, and His must be the glory of their fulfillment. It’s not about a nation nor a people—any people; it’s about Jesus Christ.

In the passage in Luke cited above, the fulfillment of God’s Old Testament prophecies concerning the redemption of Israel had been very much on the two Emmaus’ disciples minds—

Luke 24:21a But we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel...

We notice that when Jesus spoke to their concerns in Luke 24:27, He did not say, Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about Israel in all the scriptures, nor did He say, the things written about the church in all the scriptures.

Is national Israel the center of Christ’s hermeneutic? Is the church the center of Christ’s hermeneutic? No, Christ Himself is the center of His own hermeneutic. He answered the disciples’ concerns about Israel by speaking about Himself. That should be very telling. We, in our hermeneutic, should put Christ, Israel, and the church in the same perspective and balance that Jesus did—i.e., to speak of the Old and New Testament hopes for Israel and/or the church means to speak of Christ.

When thinking about the eschatology we ourselves have chosen, might it be wise to ask, Who is at the center? Where is the focus? Who (or what) is being glorified? Has a particular hermeneutic made national Israel the center of Old Testament prophesy, rather than Christ? When those of a certain point of view speak of eschatology and Old Testament promises of God to Israel, do they mostly speak about Christ or about national Israel?

Again, in verse 25, Jesus called these two disciples “foolish people” and described them as being “slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”

And, don’t we surmise and explain their disappointment as being rooted in their belief  that national Israel’s prophetic  hopes seemingly had been shattered by the crucifixion? Wasn’t Jesus saying in verses 24 through 27 that their understanding of the prophecies had been mistaken? And didn’t He set out to correct their misunderstanding? Does Jesus anywhere at all in that passage speak of a future, earthly, millennial reign in which Israel would be glorified by the fulfillment of perceived Old Testament prophecies? The answer is simple: no, the text does not say that He did. What did He interpret in His hermeneutic to them? Himself. He seems to have bypassed their concerns about national Israel in order to focus upon Himself. Is that what we get from certain eschatologies today? Where is the focus?

It is sometimes said that Old Testament prophets did not foresee a suffering Messiah. Although what the prophets themselves may or may not have understood of their own prophecies is open to question, the prophecies themselves did foretell the suffering of Christ. We know this based upon the recorded fact that when Christ explained His passion to the two Emmaus disciples, He added nothing new to scripture. Rather, the text says that He went back through the Old Testament and explained—interpreted, hermeneuticked to them—everything [already] written about Himself in “Moses and all the prophets”. All of it was already there—visible invisibility.

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. (Luk 24:27 NET)

Further, the apostle Peter came to understand and report that the Old Testament prophets themselves did indeed understand that Christ would suffer:

NET  1 Peter 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who predicted the grace that would come to you searched and investigated carefully. 11 They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory. 12 They were shown that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things now announced to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven– things angels long to catch a glimpse of. (1Pe 1:10 NET)

If the prophets themselves understood about the Christ's suffering, then who did not? Wasn't it those who were blinded, who chose not to see and believe, who rejected and stoned the prophets? In other words, wasn't it the religious leaders, the Pharisees, lawyers, priests, and high priests? And, these teachers passed their blindness down to the people, such as the two Emmaus Road disciples. Thus, the nation as a whole was so led astray that they did not recognize their prophesied suffering Messiah when He came.

Is that what is happening in the church today? Have certain leaders, or teachers, introduced an hermeneutic into scripture which neither scripture itself, nor God, uses? Who among those who sit upon the pews actually examines scripture daily, in detail, as the Bereans did, to "see if these things are so"?

Now, after explaining to the two Emmaus disciples the portions about His suffering, did Jesus then launch into a presentation of a future dispensational millennial kingdom that would assuage the disciples’ concerns about the redemption of national Israel? Did He say something to the effect of: Now that the suffering portion and the sacrificial redemption is accomplished, now we can move on to the main purpose of a dispensational millennial kingdom for national Israel? No, there is nothing in the text like that. Obviously, Jesus Himself was not openly and conversationally concerned with these things. Why then should we be?

What did Jesus do after interpreting the scriptures concerning His suffering? He broke bread with the disciples (Luke 24:30-33). And that is the moment when the eyes of their understanding were opened—the great “Aha!” moment. It’s about Jesus and His sacrificial death upon the cross. That is the main point; the cross is not the preparatory prelude to a grand theme of a dispensational millennial kingdom starring national Israel and/or the church with Christ as the figurehead king.

The cross of Jesus Christ is the main act; the cross is the central theme and focus of all human history. Everything else is secondary. All Old Testament promises find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. He Himself defines the manner of their fulfillment.

^NET  1 Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. [emphasis added]

And wasn’t Paul a national Israelite? Wasn’t he the writer of a great portion of New Testament scripture? Shouldn’t his focus be our focus? He was, after all, one of a few chosen by God to pen the document.

There is another post resurrection passage of scripture in which Jesus again bypassed the concerns of His chosen apostles concerning restoration to national Israel of an earthly kingdom.

Acts 1:6  So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, "Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"⁷He told them, "You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.”

He then told them in the very next verse what their assignment would be upon the coming of the Holy Spirit—to evangelize the whole world.

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth."

Jesus said in verse 7: “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.” Is there anywhere in the passage from Acts 1:6-8 where Jesus said there would come a time, however, when it would be okay for His followers to become concerned about the restoration of a perceived kingdom to national Israel?  Simple answer: no. Did He say that it would be alright for them to begin focusing on the restoration of the kingdom to Israel at some far future point, when they in their own understanding would feel that the time for such a perceived restoration was drawing near? No, He did not. He bypassed their concerns and instead commanded them to evangelize the whole world. Then…

Acts 1:9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

The passage in Acts 1:6-9 records the very last words spoken by Christ to His dearly beloved followers while on earth—i.e., extremely important. He gave them one task—to be His witnesses. Witnesses speak of things witnessed, or seen, not things unseen and yet to come.⁵

The next occurrence recorded in Acts 1:10 is the appearance of two men, apparently angels, who told them in verse 11 that Jesus would return in the same way they had seen Him leave.

Acts 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

At this point, my dispensational premillennial study Bible says that Christ’s return will be to set up His kingdom on earth.⁶Certain scriptures are then referenced. However, this is not what the actual text of Acts 1:11 says. That comment about setting up His kingdom on earth is an interpretation that has been added. That interpretation is not in the text itself. Nor does quoting other scripture in a footnote and inserting those verses into the context of Acts 1:11 make the interpretive comment part of the holy text itself.⁷ [No author to my knowledge has claimed that it does.] Conceivably one could quote any scripture with regard to any other and make a comment. Referencing a scripture and adding an interpretive comment does not change what the text of the original verse says. Any hermeneutic we choose should be one that clings to the actual biblical text.

The Holy Word of Acts 1:11 says that He will return in the same way He left—period. It does not say either when He will return nor why He will return (the text does not say He will return to set up His kingdom), only that He will return, and that in the same way in which the men of Galilee had seen Him go into heaven.

Acts 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

Moving on, my question is: If a perceived earthly kingdom of Christ were as important as certain interpretive eschatologies would lead one to believe, then why would Christ not speak of this perceived earthly, one thousand year kingdom in any of His post resurrection appearances? My answer is that Jesus’ hermeneutic is about Himself, about Christ. National Israel is not central to Jesus’ hermeneutic, nor is the church. Nowhere does the New Testament change or negate the words of Jesus Himself, when He “interpreted”, or “hermeneuticked”, or “διερμήνευσεν” to them “the things written about himself in all the scriptures.”

It’s not about an earthly kingdom of precisely one thousand years for national Israel; neither is it about the church (whether or not one believes that biblical “Israel” and the church are one); it is about Christ and about “Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).  Christ’s concern was that His followers evangelize the whole world unto obedience to Himself.

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.”

^NET  John 21:17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep.”

^NET  Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

 

The Relationship of the Old and New Testaments in Terms of Hermeneutics

As a berean⁸ lay student of God’s Holy word, the hermeneutic I use is Christian, because I am  Christian, and because the New Testament has indeed been written. One can never go back to a time when there was just the Old Testament. One cannot erase the New Testament—it has been written. What the New Testament stands for has also been written eternally in the blood of Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the heir of all things, the creator and savior of the world:

^NET  Luke 22:20 And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Upon the advent of the new covenant, even the very name of the original portion of scripture changed—Old Testament. God’s word was not formerly called “Old”. It was referred to generally as the Law and the Prophets. The word “Old” did not come about until the advent of the New.

Has the New Testament replaced the Old? No—it is built upon the foundation of the Old—it has not replaced the Old.

^NIV  Zechariah 8:9 This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Now hear these words, 'Let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.' This is also what the prophets said who were present when the foundation was laid for the house of the LORD Almighty.

^NIV  Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Has the New Testament changed the Old? Yes—forever.

^NET  Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code.

^NET  2 Corinthians 5:17 So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away– look, what is new has come!

^NET  Hebrews 8:6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.

^NET  Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days– ¹⁷ these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!

Scripture gives no rationale for insisting that the words of the Old Testament be allowed to stand on their own without benefit of the light shed by the New.⁹ In fact, the opposite is true.¹⁰

^NET  Hebrews 8:5a The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary…”

⁶But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.

⁷For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one.

⁸But showing its fault, God says to them, "Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

⁹"It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord.

¹⁰"For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.

¹¹"And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, 'Know the Lord,' since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest.

¹²"For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer."

¹³When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

Yet as seen in verse 13, scripture does teach that the New Testament has replaced the Old in at least one sense: “When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13) The writer to the Hebrews is making reference to the old covenant of the Law with its blessings and curses. The promises to Abraham, on the other hand, predated the Law and were made to all mankind.

^NET  Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

¹⁴For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified.

 ¹⁵ For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.

 ¹⁶ For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants– not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

 ¹⁷ (as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"). He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed– the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.

And Jesus Christ is the heir of Abraham.

^NET  Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.

 

Conclusion

What then, is the conclusion of the matter? What is the only true basis of a sound biblical hermeneutic, eschatological or other? Answer: Jesus Christ.

^NET  Revelation 5:9 They were singing a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were killed, and at the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

^NET  Revelation 5:12 all of whom were singing in a loud voice: "Worthy is the lamb who was killed to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and praise!"

Hermeneutical systems can be compared one with another. By so doing, one can see that some systems give greater presence, focus, glory, honor, and kingly sovereign authority to the Christ than others. That, and scripture itself, is the basis of my choice.

__________

1 For a counter hermeneutic, see the following: John MacArthur, Shepherd’s Conference 2007, First Message, available at philgons.com/docs/macarthur-on-amillennialism.pdf [search on “get Israel right”]. See also a commentary upon the above by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments, available at http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/, © 2012

2 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary copyright © 2012 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, Available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hermeneutic

3 ἑρμηνεύωShorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, edited by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick William Danker.  Copyright © 1965 by The University of Chicago Press

4 See article by this author, Christina Wilson, Might a Dispensational Premillennial Gospel Be Dangerous?, Bible.org Users Community Site, June 9, 2012, available at http://users.bible.org/articles/might_dispensational_premillennial_gospel_be_dangerous

5 When John gave the Revelation, he spoke of “everything that he saw” (Revelation 1:2). He also spoke of things he heard. In context, John was witnessing from a first person, personal, historical perception (in the sense that this vision really did “happen” to him). He “saw” a vision—signs (Revelation 1:1-2). What he saw is what he told his readers. John was not interpreting scriptures, although there were many allusions he made to many scriptures.

Paul, as well, spoke of an understanding he had received when carried to the third heaven, a first person experience (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

Christians generally, according to Christ’s great commission to them, are commanded to testify, or bear witness, of their experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ. The entire thrust of New Testament concern is Jesus Christ, not eschatology.

 6 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, New American Standard Bible Updated Edition, Thomas Nelson, Inc., © 2006, page 1599, Acts 1:11 “just the same way. [bold type in original] Christ one day will return to earth (to the Mt. of Olives), in the same way He ascended (with clouds), to set up His kingdom (cf. Da 7:13; Zec 14:4; Mt 24:30; 26:64; Rev 1:7; 14:14).”

7 You may read the above referenced biblical texts as many times and as carefully as you wish, but you will find no mention in those verses of the study note’s phrase “to set up His kingdom”.

Inserting the addresses of scripture into the footnote of a study Bible does not necessarily verify the comment concerning the text into whose footnote they have been inserted. Nor does inserting the addresses of scripture into the footnote of a verse verify automatically that the application of the inserted texts to that particular passage is correct. That is all part of one’s hermeneutical interpretation.

Let’s look at this. In footnote 6 referenced just above, the study note reads “to set up His kingdom (cf. Da 7:13; Zec 14:4; Mt 24:30; 26:64; Rev 1:7; 14:14).” Here are the referenced verses spelled out:

^NET  Daniel 7:13 I was watching in the night visions, "And with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him.

^NET  Zechariah 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives which lies to the east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, leaving a great valley. Half the mountain will move northward and the other half southward.

^NET  Matthew 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

^NET  Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

^NET  Revelation 1:7 (Look! He is returning with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes on the earth will mourn because of him. This will certainly come to pass! Amen.)

^NET  Revelation 14:14 Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man! He had a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

And here again is the biblical text under consideration:

^NET  Acts 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

1) The verses cited all agree with the statement in Acts 1:11 that Christ will come again as He left. No problem there.

2) But, in none of the cited verses nor in the main text is there any mention at all, nor even an allusion, to the author of the study notes’ interpretation that Christ is so returning to “set up His kingdom”. That statement is an addition to the text, an addition made in a footnote, not to the text itself.

This is but one example of the kind of interpretive additions made in footnotes written throughout this particular study Bible. Referencing scriptures in a footnote does not validate interpretations, especially when the references bear no similarity to the interpretive statement being made.

8 I use the term “Berean” throughout this article in a figurative, symbolic sense of one who eagerly receives God’s preached word, then goes home and compares what was heard with what the scriptures say. I make no reference nor connection to the denomination of that name.

9 “Now a note here please:  it is not legitimate to interpret the Old Testament as secondary to [stet—this is how the original is written] the New Testament as primary.  Okay?  That's not legitimate.  Otherwise, the Old Testament was literally darkness not light.  If you say that the Old Testament cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the New Testament then you have denied the perspicuity of the Old Testament.” Quotation from John MacArthur, as found in article by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, “John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments”, available at http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/, © 2012 by Kim Riddlebarger

10 “The New Testament is the best interpreter of the Old…” Quotation by Alexander Pirie, as found in Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, Volume Two, Psalm the Eightieth, Explanatory Notes and Quaint Sayings, Verse 17.

...........................................

Links to Related Articles by Christina Wilson

Rising to Meet Christ in the Air: Word Study

Overview of Paul in Ephesians 1 through 3—One Election or Two?

Jesus Spiritualizes the Kingdom: Concrete/Spiritual Conundrum—The Big Change

Why the Millennium Can't Be the Millennium

Might a Dispensational Premillennial Gospel Be Dangerous?

Eschatology—A Berean Viewpoint

Romans 11:26 "All Israel" Includes Gentiles

Blessing and Cursing Israel--No More